[mickss]

There is a replacement for displacement it`s called technology. Back in the day when that saying was popular it was in most cases true but that`s not the case anymore.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Well, technically you're simply using boost, on said hypothetical V8, to replace displacement of an even larger engine.

Boost is literally allowing the processing of air and fuel that would not be present via atmo alone. Making a 2.0L process the air/fuel of a 4.0L is no different than making a 4.0L process the air/fuel atmo would provide to a 8.0L engine.

So, the statement that "Yeah, well, I can boost the bigger engine and make even more power." In fact further verifies that boost is a functional replacement for added displacement.

If forced induction is 'virtually' adding displacement by making the engine behave as though it is much bigger than it actually is ... then have you actually replaced displacement as the ultimate delineator for engine performance?


The philosophical questions that arise on car forums ...

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Well, technically you're simply using boost, on said hypothetical V8, to replace displacement of an even larger engine.

Boost is literally allowing the processing of air and fuel that would not be present via atmo alone. Making a 2.0L process the air/fuel of a 4.0L is no different than making a 4.0L process the air/fuel atmo would provide to a 8.0L engine.

So, the statement that "Yeah, well, I can boost the bigger engine and make even more power." In fact further verifies that boost is a functional replacement for added displacement.

So, the question is, would you, or anyone, rather have a 2.0L running 30lbs to get 400HP, or a NA V8?

[bkevind]

I really like 4 cylinder turbo engines, they can be a lot of fun. My 2008 2.3T Mazdaspeed3 was making 300 at the wheels with simple upgrades. It was fun.

A lot of folks were easily pushing a LOT more. But 300 was already borderline for me to put power down at the road course where I like to play.

I like twin turbo V6's even more (B5 Audi S4 TT 2.7...one of the best sounding engines ever made, when it wasn't broken)

I like twin turbo V8's ... well never tried one but it stands to reason I'd REALLY like that

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

So, the question is, would you, or anyone, rather have a 2.0L running 30lbs to get 400HP, or a NA V8?

Relatively easy to get massive torque (and HP, but moreso torque) out of a turbo engine, especially with modern technology. It comes on earlier. We are nearing the pinnacle of our relatively large displacement NA V8 engines, they can definitely be screwed up like the old BMW M3 NA V8 that made less than 300 torque, having to rev for days, or even more like the modern Mustang.

Although turbo lag used to be a big deal, modern setups with the turbo so close to the manifold, keeping stuff hot, electric motors to help spin, and everything else, it's largely in the past. That doesn't mean that subaru still isn't putting out some POS like current STI that has soldiered on way too long with the same engine and turbo setup, but these more modern setups are far ahead and it shows when you drive them. My last, a BMW, was exactly like this. You get more "lag" due to throttle programming, just like in the Camaro, but people seem to mistake this and being in a low automatic gear with "turbo lag". It's not when these things are doing full torque from 1500-1700rpm and upwards.

The reliability, longevity and wear and tear are really the questions though. Can these blocks and components manage these pressures for hundreds of thousands of miles?

[lbls1]

I'm glad at least one mfr. isn't throwing away hp and displacement. Horsepower really isn't a bad word, and I feel that we've progressed to a point where engines can be produced to operate cleanly and efficiently. I don't mind improvements to efficiency, but it is a shame to abandon everything that was accomplished by improvements to larger displacement and performance engines.

[kevint]

Improvements in efficiency can be carried along the displacement continuum, but there may be diminishing returns and trade-offs made at larger displacements and power outputs that result in an artificial cap in power.

ICEs lose most of their potential output to heat, and the cooling demand necessary to keep the reaction moving forward (more power) may outweigh any potential benefit. Think of the nine(?) heat exchangers needed to make the ZL1 what it is, where they are located, the resulting cost to aerodynamics, added weight, manufacturing and maintenance, etc.